Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tom Green County Court approves abatement for property near high school after years of complaints
Summary
The Tom Green County Commissioners Court voted to approve abatement of 7753 South Comer Mountain Circle in Precinct 3 after repeated complaints, earlier guilty pleas by the owner and county attempts to notify him. Neighbors and county staff described unsafe conditions and proximity to a nearby high school.
The Tom Green County Commissioners Court on April 1 approved a county-initiated abatement of the property at 7753 South Comer Mountain Circle in Precinct 3 following years of complaints and unsuccessful cleanup efforts.
County Councilor Lamar Whitaker, who requested the abatement, told the court the county has “been dealing with mister Navarette since 02/2019” and that the owner “has plead guilty twice, but has not motivated him to clean up his property.” Whitaker said the county’s public nuisance administrator and neighbors have repeatedly complained and that certified notices were returned executed.
The request included video and body-cam footage shown to the court describing accumulated debris and structures that neighbors said have worsened over time. Whitaker said the property is “right next door to the high school,” a detail he urged the court to consider when weighing abatement.
A resident who lives nearby described difficulty walking through the property because of debris and confirmed county staff hung legal notices after unsuccessful personal contacts with the owner. Court discussion noted the owner’s age and health issues and that criminal filings had not produced cleanup, leading staff to recommend abatement rather than further prosecution.
A motion to approve the abatement was made and seconded; the court called for the ayes and the motion carried. The court did not record a roll-call vote in the minutes provided.
Court staff said they will proceed with the abatement under the county’s nuisance procedures and pursue cost recovery per county policy where applicable. The motion and supporting materials submitted to the court included video excerpts, certified mailing receipts and prior case history going back to 2019.
The court did not provide a timetable for when county crews will begin work or an estimate of costs during the meeting; staff said follow-up steps would be handled through the county’s nuisance-abatement process and that affected neighbors had asked for relief.
